Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Complexity Interpretation...

From: David Rovner <>
Date: Sat Nov 30 17:43:01 2002

What do you think about this?:

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."
[. . .]
"There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement . . .
[. . .]
Today , however, when people speak of "compromise," what they mean is not a legitimate mutual concession or a trade, but precisely the betrayal of one's principles -- the unilateral surrender to any groundless, irrational claim . . .
[. . .]
[Doesn't Life Require Compromise?, Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 68]

~ David

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Victoria Serda
  Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 11:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Complexity Interpretation...

  Dear David,
  Yes, I do believe it is compromising. There is usually a compromise in how much to have societal approval for an enterprise, for the more societal approval, the more likely to have the ideas further spread. If the community doesn't support your ideas, there will be more struggle to exist and promulgate the ideas. The more energy it takes to exist, the less energy is left over to pursue the dissemination of these ideals. I think it is only natural, even when one believes in non-authoritarianism, to want to circulate ideas that people may possibly want to understand and consider. Therefore, each person or group must find their own place to put their mark on the line graph of following the ideals totally verses doing what is accepted in society.
  David Rovner wrote:

     What do you mean by:>I think in this area, as in life, it is important to balance extremes.<Is that compromising? ~ David
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Victoria Serda
      Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Complexity Interpretation...
       Dear Darren,
      I am just finishing up my thesis on something similar--how schools like SVS are optimal for learning and producing the kind of citizens that society needs. I also have experience starting an SVS-type school.
      I think in this area, as in life, it is important to balance extremes. It is not possible right now to have fully non-authoritarian structures, because society is authoritarian. Therefore, the goal should be to minimize coercion and maximize freedom. In order for a school to exist without being closed down by the government, it has to follow the rules.
      The end result of granting children a much healthier option must be balanced with the detriments to working in the current system.
      Victoria Serda
      Darren Stanley wrote:

        Hello All! I am presently going through the numerous stories and articles that I have on SVS - shaped mostly through the writings found in the SVS books that are available to anyojne through the SVS website. As part of my PhD dissertation (in Education), I am attempting to show/illuminate how "schools" might be healthier in how they function, following the actions of SVS (as an example of what might be possible). SVS strikes me as akin to a deeply living, biological entity. Framed in this way, and using what researchers and scholars from a diversity of fields have had to say about complex systems, I wonder what might *in principle* be present to help make SVS *work*. It seems to me that there is plenty of diversity present; interactions across many time/space scales (e.g., no restrictions on age/subject/interest level). The types and strengths of interactions may bring forth a variety of different/novel emergent events...and so on... In my work in the non-profit health sector (another cap I wear), I have an implicit understanding of what a "healthy" organization might be like. From what I have read and know about SVS and other related matters, SVS is IMHO the epitomy of a healthy educational setting - speaking rather broadly. Here are some questions I've been pondering...any thoughts out there?!? The school seems to have this sort of "self-organizing" feature to it: no authoritarian leaders (leadership is shared/distributed?); no external constraints? but can there be NO external constraints? There are, of course, state regulations, but how or do these regulations play out? Or might it be better said that the school is "influenced" by state regulations? Is influence the same as coercion? Sorry for all the questions...I do have more tho', but I will stop there! On another note...I don't know if Daniel Greenberg is on this list, but I've recently read your/his essay on human interest. What a remarkable piece. Not only did it help to illuminate a completely new view of this phenomenon for me, I have also shared it with my work colleague who has in turn shared it with a number of other "dissatisfied suburban housewives" (her words, not mine). In every instance, everyone of these people "get it" and see how traditioanl schooling works so hard to ignore and work with the "interests" of others. thanks! Darren Darren StanleyUniversity of Alberta, CanadaPlexus Institute, Allentown,
Received on Sat Nov 30 2002 - 17:42:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:04 EDT